Case Laws-NI-High Courts

Under NI, the accused has to bring on record something which is probable defence for getting the burden of proof shifted on the complainant – Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. – Gujarat High Court

The use of phrase that “until the contrary it is proved” under section 118 of the Act and use of the words “unless the contrary is proved” under section 139 of the Act read with definition of “may presume and shall presume” as given under section 4 of the Evidence Act makes it at once clear that presumption to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable, when the presumption is rebuttable it only points out that party on whom the duty of going forward with evidence lies, on the fact presumed when the party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of presumption is over.

Under NI, the accused has to bring on record something which is probable defence for getting the burden of proof shifted on the complainant – Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. – Gujarat High Court Read Post »

Once, no dispute remains between the parties to the lis, then obviously the law cannot be so harsh so as to stand as a wall between the parties notwithstanding the amicable settlement inter se the parties – Sunil Kumar Vs. Anand Automobile and Anr. – Himachal Pradesh High Court

The object of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is that in case the accused under the aforesaid enactment remits/discharges or liquidates his liability then such a person can be absolved of the criminal action-prosecution by permitting compounding of offence in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. Moreover, once the petitioner-accused has discharged/liquidated his liability towards Respondent-Complainant, therefore, the continuance of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose. The compounding of an offence would enable both the parties to lead life of respect and dignity in the society. Once, no dispute remains between the parties to the lis, then obviously the law cannot be so harsh so as to stand as a wall between the parties notwithstanding the amicable settlement inter se the parties. Continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances, would only cause an irreparable harassment and hardship and may even tarnish and spoil the reputation of the petitioner-accused.

Once, no dispute remains between the parties to the lis, then obviously the law cannot be so harsh so as to stand as a wall between the parties notwithstanding the amicable settlement inter se the parties – Sunil Kumar Vs. Anand Automobile and Anr. – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Proceedings in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act are ordinarily to be conducted as a summary trial – Rahul Darbari Vs. Arun Kumar Khobragade and Ors. – Delhi High Court

(2024) ibclaw.in 272 HC IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Rahul Darbariv.Arun Kumar Khobragade and Ors. CRL.M.C. 1171/2022 & CRL.M.A.

Proceedings in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act are ordinarily to be conducted as a summary trial – Rahul Darbari Vs. Arun Kumar Khobragade and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes liable to pay Interim Compensation only “drawer of the cheque” and not other persons who may be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 138 due to Section 141 of the NI Act – Prakash Vasant Ajgaonkar and Ors. Vs. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court

In this important decision, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) What is also relevant is that Section 143A of the NI Act empowers the Court to pass a direction for payment of interim compensation only against the “drawer of the cheque”. In the present case, admittedly, the drawer of the cheques is the company and not the Petitioners. The Petitioners have been arrayed as accused invoking Section 141 of the NI Act.
(ii) It is to be noted that Section 143A of the NI Act, though inserted post the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Hada (supra) and N. Harihara Krishana (supra), still makes only the “drawer of the cheque”, and not the other persons, who may be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act due to Section 141 of the NI Act, liable to pay the interim compensation. It is not for this Court to read into Section 143A of the NI Act, the deeming provision of Section 141 of the NI Act. If that was the intent of the Legislature, Section 143A of the NI Act would have expressly stipulated the same.

Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes liable to pay Interim Compensation only “drawer of the cheque” and not other persons who may be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 138 due to Section 141 of the NI Act – Prakash Vasant Ajgaonkar and Ors. Vs. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Moratorium under Section 14 of IBC prohibiting the proceeding under Section(s) 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be applicable against the Directors of the Corporate Debtor – Gurmeher Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. – Allahabad High Court

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court referring the judgments in P. Mohanraj and Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 24 SC and Narindar Garg and others vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2022) ibclaw.in 29 SC held that on commencement of insolvency resolution process, the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC prohibiting the proceeding under Section(s) 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will be applicable only against the corporate debtor and not against the natural persons like the directors of the company for their vicarious liability.

Moratorium under Section 14 of IBC prohibiting the proceeding under Section(s) 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be applicable against the Directors of the Corporate Debtor – Gurmeher Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top